We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

In Tan Hup Thye v Refco (Singapore) Pte Ltd (in members' voluntary liquidation), the plaintiff had sued the defendant for bonus payments which he alleged he was entitled to in respect of his employment with the defendant

The case of Sinwa SS (HK) Co Ltd v Morten Innhaug 2010 SGHC 157 considered both procedural and substantive issues in connection with bringing a common law derivative action in Singapore on behalf of a non-Singaporean company against a director of the company for breach of the director's fiduciary duties

The Singapore Court of Appeal in Thio Keng Poon v Thio Syn Pyn & Ors and another appeal held that non-compliance with a requirement in a company's articles of association to make a request to a director to vacate his office before removing him as a director was a substantive irregularity that had invalidated the removal of the director

In assessing a claim for damages on the basis of "loss of a chance", the English Court of Appeal in Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc v Elektrim SA & Anor rejected the claimant's proposed approach of considering a range of possible scenarios which might have occurred but for the defendant's action or omission, and taking into account the chance of each in deriving the damages

IN Norwest Holdings Pte Ltd (in Liquidation) v Newport Mining Ltd and another appeal 2011 SGCA 42, the Singapore Court of Appeal concluded that the plain meaning of the "subject to contract" provisions in the relevant documents should be applied inthe circumstances of the case and that there was therefore no binding contract between the parties

In EC Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd & Ors and another appeal 2011 SGCA 50, the Singapore Court of Appeal declined to order specific performance of an agreement for the sale and purchase of a house for a number of reasons, including that the purchaser was quite content to forego its right to acquire the house if the compensation offered to it was right and that a third party would suffer hardship if specific performance were granted